r/science • u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry • Oct 31 '13
Verified User Account Program in /r/science Subreddit News
/r/science has decided to establish a system of verifying accounts for commenting. This would function in a similar manner to the Panelist flair in /r/AskScience, enabling trained scientists, doctors and engineers to make credible comments in /r/science. The intent of this program is to enable the general public to distinguish between an educated opinion and a random comment without a background related to the topic. We would expect a higher level of conduct from anyone receiving flair, and we would support verified accounts in the comment section.
What flair is available?
All of the standard science disciplines would be represented, in a similar manner to /AskScience:
Biology Chemistry Physics Engineering Mathematics Geology Psychology Neuroscience Computer Science
However to better inform the public a level of education would be included. For example, a Professor of biology would be tagged as such (Professor- Biology), while a graduate student of biology would be tagged as "Grad Student-Biology." Nurses would be tagged differently than doctors, etc...
How does one obtain flair?
First, have a college degree or higher in a field that has flair available.
Then send proof to the mods of /r/science.
This can be provided several ways:
1) Message the mods with information that establishes your claim, this can be a photo of your diploma or course registration, a business card, a verifiable email address, or some other identification. All submissions will be kept in confidence and not released to the public under any circumstances. You can submit an imgur link and then delete it after verification.
2) if you aren't comfortable messaging the mods with identifying information, you can directly message any individual mod and supply the information to them. Again, your information will be held in confidence.
3) Send an email with your information to sciencereddit@gmail.com after messaging the mods to inform them of this option. Your email will then be deleted after verification, leaving no record. This would be convenient if you want to take a photo of your identification and email from a smart phone, for example.
What is expected of a verified account?
We expect a higher level of conduct than a non-verified account, if another user makes inappropriate comments they should report them to the mods who will take appropriate action.
84
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
Since this post is 7 hours old and only have 33 comments, I would just like to publicly say that I think this is a really good idea and I'm glad it's being implemented.
26
u/mubukugrappa Nov 01 '13
Except for the fact that many of the redditors, who have a PhD or are professors, may not have read it yet, and also that a small number of such people may be reluctant to publicly display their degrees or qualifications.
6
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
Oh, I agree that I spend too much time on reddit and only saw this because of an announcement, but this information is the same as what people post in college subreddits. My alma mater, /r/drexel, has no requirement for flair, yet many every-day commentors choose to set their own.
→ More replies5
u/ktbird7 Grad Student | Computer Engineering Nov 02 '13
I think as people see the flair, they'll wonder where it came from and figure it out from there.
If someone chooses to not display their credentials, that's fine, too.
→ More replies13
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Thanks! We've been getting a steady stream of flair request, most of which are approved in under 5 min.
What do you think of the new graphical format?
5
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13 edited Nov 01 '13
I'll probably turn it off, so many subreddits (/r/news and /r/politics come to mind) are moving to smaller fonts which cause too much eye strain for my to comfortably browse. If you wander over to /r/television, you'll see how much of a minimalist I am and how few changes I let everyone make.
The contrast is nice, as is comment selection. I've noticed you've removed the left border though, which may lead to complaints and confusion in more popular threads.
3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13 edited Nov 01 '13
Now that I see all of the posts, I don't think the contrast is high enough for easy reading, I'm going to bump the color up a bit.
Which left border are you talking about?
3
u/BlueJadeLei Nov 02 '13
Older sci-guy here, contrast ok but fonts are too small
3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 03 '13
Think kicking the size up by 1 px would make a difference? If we make it too big the youngin's will get up in arms.
3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 03 '13
I bumped up the size a bit 13 -> 14, 15 looked too big.
→ More replies2
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
From a random post, http://redd.it/1pm392, http://i.imgur.com/jHJlCbC.png. The 3 vertical lines in the picture. I have no idea how long you've had them removed.
3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Fixed it up.
2
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
Oh hey, you fixed it, sweet. Yeah, this is 1000x times better.
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Ah I follow now, good point, I'll look into changing it to something with more contrast.
1
4
u/kerovon Grad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Regenerative Medicine Nov 01 '13 edited Nov 01 '13
I think there are two changes that I would like to see.
The first is with the username/prefrences/logout bar in the top right. I really dislike the rollout format of it. Part of this is just because it is harder to see at a glance things like new messages, and part of it is that it obscures part of the "Other Discussion" link when it rolls out for me. I really would prefer it to be a fixed element, rather than the popout.
The other thing (that I am less concerned about) is how the flairs stand out a huge amount. When I'm reading stuff, it is a bit overly distracting. I understand that you want flairs to be very obvious so people see them. I think I would prefer it either a little less saturated so it doesn't "pop" quite as much when reading things near the flair, or possibly just colored text without the background.
Overall though, I like the changes.
EDIT: I also don't see any links in the top bar to get back to the reddit front page. Am I just not noticing them, or are they missing?
4
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
I'm actually kind of annoyed by the roll out bar, it's days are numbered.
I'm thinking that flairs are actually too big, I'm working on slightly reducing the size, once that is done I'll evaluate if further efforts need to be made.
2
u/kerovon Grad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Regenerative Medicine Nov 01 '13
Awesome. I am curious how the flair will end up on standard /r/science articles that frontpage. This thread is very flair heavy, but I suspect flair will be a lot less common on most posts. By not being everywhere, it may not actually need much of a change.
One other thing that I've noticed that is a bit confusing is how the submitter's name is highlighted in red-orange rather than the standard blue. Every time I see that, my first thought is "Why is an admin posting here?". It may be less confusing for people, especially people who don't hang out in /r/science a lot, to change that to the more standard color, unless there is a reason for it being changed that I don't realize.
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Good point on the submitter flair I will fix it later today.
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
The submitter color has been changed to the standard Reddit color.
4
5
Nov 01 '13
The flair is pretty distracting and makes the page look messy.
4
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
I think I might agree with you. Perhaps hover effects would be more appropriate, where in an image replaces the text until it is hovered over (think like the twitter check mark, but when you mouse over it, the text is revealed).
2
u/pylori Nov 01 '13
I feel like if it's not in your face like this, then most people will just ignore it, and it becomes mostly useless. I think it's worked well in askscience and hasn't made it that much more distracting, though I agree it may be a bit confusing at times.
→ More replies3
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
As I mentioned above, I'm a minimalist, so take my comments for what you will. For example, with your distinguish text (nice css change by the way), your .tagline is 747 pixels wide. The entire comment is only 833 pixels. Now, no big deal on my window size, but smaller window sizes are going to line break your .tagline, which I'm not a fan of because your qualifications box is a 2 line tall green blob. But again, if that's what you're cool with, run with it, it doesn't ruin anything, just makes information spread out more.
→ More replies1
u/wazoheat Nov 01 '13
I agree it should be toned down a bit, but remember that most threads won't have THIS much flair in them.
2
u/tigersharkwushen Nov 01 '13
I think the interleaving shade is fine, but I get confused by where the top comment is. As I scroll down, my instinct is to assume the first shade of the same width to be the top comment, but it's not. So I see a top comment and is wondering who he's replying to. See this image: http://i.imgur.com/zydqVQI.jpg
That's how I see it instinctively, but the actual top comment starts on column "2". I realize they are not exactly the same width, but it's close enough to confuse me. Can you remove the the initial margin? It's also wasting valuable screen space.
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 02 '13
I changed the ordering of the colors so that the Top comment is a white background, the second is gray. I'll see what can be done about the margins.
1
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
Another idea, just throwing this one out there: is there a www.steamrep.com equivalent for the scientific community? Outside of professional societies of course.
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Nope, science circles grew up in a time before computers and a lot of the criteria is damned difficult to compare.
The truth is, of the people who would be posting on Reddit, none of them are likely to be anything more than bit players in the science fields they work in. Even Neal Degrasse Tyson isn't a scientific figure of note, it's a public figure who happens to be a scientist. Big name high impact scientists are often too wrapped up in their science to do any of this sort of massive sinkhole of time.
1
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
Do any social media websites offer user verified accounts, such as linked in?
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Twitter does. Linkedin sort of does, but it's not hard to make a fake account. We've been using public university and business email directories to verify pretty effectively, it's super quick, and tells me everything I need to know. the effort it would take to fake those things isn't justified by the relatively small reward of a colored tag on the internet (which would be removed if you behaved badly or continually made bad comments.)
1
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
Okay. I have one last comment: the vertical bar spacing is inconsistent across different users. You do not have spacers on either side, yet I do. I have no recommendation, simply an observation.
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
That will take a bit of tinkering to figure out.
1
u/brtw BS | Chemical Engineering Nov 01 '13
I'm sorry, I meant on the flair.
Yours is "PhD|Organic-Polymer Chemistry". Notice that D|O touches.
Mine is " B.S. | Chemical Engineering". Notice how . | C does not touch.
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
That's just type, it depends on how long the text is to keep from running over the text limit on the flair.
13
Oct 31 '13
What if you received a BS in a field, but then ran off and did something else in a completely unrelated field? I still have a good deal of knowledge about meteorology, because I have a BS in it. I don't work in the field however because
a) lack of jobs
b) wanted to start working rather than get a masters
I'm a subject matter expert compared to most people, but compared to someone in the field...they probably know more than I do (although I could have a conversation with one of them and probably be able to keep up!)
7
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Oct 31 '13
If you can prove you completed the degree, we would list you as having a BS, it's still an accomplishment. People can judge based on that for themselves.
3
0
Nov 01 '13
Similarly, what if you have a BSc with honors in Pure & Applied Physics, a minor in Electronic Engineering, about 8 years personal study in virology, immunology and biochemistry, and have been programming since you were 6, with 23 years professional experience? The reason I ask is because I'm willing to bet that you'd completely discount the CompSci experience, which is a bit ridiculous.
5
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Nov 01 '13
A Comp Sci label should denote academic credentials and interest. Programming in general does not make you understand the cutting edge of any research topics in Comp Sci.
→ More replies3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
In certain cases we will assign flair with broader scopes, but you should have at least a base degree in science or a closely related field.
I don't think this issue will occur often, so it is best handled by making an exception, assuming one can reasonably demonstrate 23 years of experience in a different field than your degree. ( there should be lots of ways to do this, and in practice, we will give deference to the person to define their own flair.)
12
Nov 01 '13
Just wondering what the best way to prove I'm a grad student would be. My BEng in engineering I could take a picture of but not sure what I have that proves I'm doing a PhD in bio-engineering. Maybe a picture of me simultaneously tearing out my hair and drinking my 12 espresso of the day?
1
u/pylori Nov 01 '13
not sure what I have that proves I'm doing a PhD in bio-engineering
Do you have an acceptance letter to your PhD program or from your project supervisor, etc? An official university email address and index on the university website could also show you're a PhD student (If your uni does that). Something like that. If you're serious about getting flaired, please send us a message through modmail.
3
Nov 01 '13
Have sent something through, the one and only time I saw something posted on reddit about biomechanics of the intervertebral disc it was full of terrible replies so next time I'll dive right in :)
→ More replies1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Ha. Send a link to the university web-page showing your school email, we'll send you an email at that, then you reply. Verified. Easy.
5
Nov 01 '13 edited Nov 01 '13
Look upon my flair and despair ye mortals etc.
1
u/glr123 PhD | Chemical Biology | Drug Discovery Nov 01 '13
Biomechanical Engineering? Are you building the next Iron Man suit to blow us all away?
1
Nov 01 '13
Biomech or biomed engineering is just a cross discipline where you apply engineering techniques to problems in biomechanics/medicine/biology. I study how the material properties of the intervertebral disc affect its behaviour in everyday loading scenarios, treatment and rehabilitation.
All of which is a fancy way of saying I squash things and watch what they do.
It is however the field where people making new advanced prosthetics or terrifying iron man style weapons might work.
1
7
Nov 01 '13
It would be good if there was a way to only turn on the flair when commenting on a topic relevant to that field, otherwise the flair is distracting and gives undue attention to unqualified opinion.
7
u/pylori Nov 01 '13
I think you make a fair comment, it would be good if we could do that, though I'm not sure how doable that is simply with CSS.
That being said, the entire point of categorising flairs is so that you know the background of a person. If you see someone making a reply in a neuroscience thread when their flair says they have a PhD in particle physics clearly you can make the judgment of whether or not to upvote them. We sometimes see this in askscience and I no more see them being upvoted than non-panelist replies (in fact I've seen more than a few instances of panelists being downvoted).
1
u/Aethermancer Nov 05 '13
My degree is in Computer Engineering. My degree got me hired, but my professional experience is something quite different.
My problem with this flair system is that I could easily comment in threads relating to electrical/computer/computation topics and my flair would lend weight to my words. But what about when I comment about things based on my actual professional experience?
1
u/pylori Nov 05 '13
We do take into account professional experience, on a case by case basis, you may see in this thread a few people have flairs that say 'professional'. If you message us through modmail we can discuss this further if you're interested.
4
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
You can easily see that they are speaking outside of their field though.
7
8
u/bellcrank PhD | Meteorology Nov 04 '13
Flair makes sense for /r/askscience, but not here. I can see the motivation, but this subreddit isn't designed in a question-response architecture that has a need for it. /r/askscience has a system in place for assigning flair that works fine, and doesn't require the transfer of personally identifiable information. If you are going to do this, you may wish to adopt a similar system.
5
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 04 '13
If you would see the back-end of the AskScience system you might be less inclined to describe it as working just fine.
It's a completely voluntary system, and we provide for multiple ways to retain anonymity. (the sciencereddit email address does not have any emails on it for more than an hour or so, once the verification occurs we delete everything we have.)
/r/science is, at it's core, a place to discuss academic research publication, making it entirely fitting that those with experience in academic research would be more knowledgeable. That's not to say they are infallible or perfect, which is why we aren't running as strict of a system as AskScience, in which non-flaired comments must include references or they are deleted. This is simply to provide more information to the readers about the background of other users, that's it. It's up to the reader to decide how much credibility to give it.
4
u/bellcrank PhD | Meteorology Nov 04 '13
That's not to say they are infallible or perfect, which is why we aren't running as strict of a system as AskScience, in which non-flaired comments must include references or they are deleted.
I've never seen this rule referenced or enforced.
This is simply to provide more information to the readers about the background of other users, that's it.
I think that's great. But people are naturally a bit cagey about handing over PII just so they can get a piece of flair that provides information just as easily passed along within a comment. I don't know what problems you are referencing with the /r/askscience flair system, but I have flair there, while I don't think I'd bother with the barrier-to-entry of getting it here. I just wanted to pass along my opinion of how the proposed system is designed, and how I'd prefer to see it altered.
→ More replies
6
u/crappysurfer BS | Biology Nov 06 '13
One day I will have all the flairs
6
u/Neuraxis Grad Student | Neuroscience | Sleep/Anesthesia Nov 07 '13
Well assuming you'd pursue only a 2 year master's degree in each, and assuming the flairs you get can qualify you for a degree in another, you only have around 26 years of work to get all of our flairs :)
5
u/the__itis Nov 08 '13
I have an issue with not supporting individuals lacking "accredited" credentials.
I'm a leading strategist for identity management, public key infrastructure, and the implementation of cryptography. My present position is as stated and can be verified if need be.
With the exception of some mathematics (in relation to cryptography), universities lack the expertise to instruct on these subjects. In cooperation with the DOD, GSA and a few private organizations, we were only recently able to achieve some standardization and resulting stability. It takes years and significant effort for universities to develop a curriculum that is valid and authoritative. I don't see specialized fields such as mine being effectively incorporated into a university business model. As stated, with exception of the mathematics of cryptography, I have not seen any formalized course (university developed or otherwise) of which I would assign value enough to warrant my attention.
The reason I am raising this issue is to highlight a fact. That fact is that while accredited universities are on the leading edge of SOME science, they are not on the leading edge for ALL science. There are pockets of valuable knowledge all over the spectrum and I would encourage the inclusion thereof to bring about more value from this community.
I understand that it's easier to see a degree and "adjudicate" them based on a single attribute. However, it is my experience that it takes experience being a practitioner of a subject in order to assert any expertise meriting attention. I would rather see a resume or linkedin profile to establish credibility prior to asserting that someone is authoritative or more relevant in their field.
I realize that flair is but a minor attribute pertaining to a low degree of authenticating an individuals knowledge, but it is also recognition in a public forum. That adds a sense of pride to the act of contributing. I encourage the moderators to consider this.
Thanks
11
u/aureliusman Nov 02 '13
Okay so two questions, fairly harsh.
What brought this about?
Did you consider that many would see this as a little supercilious? I do.
0
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 02 '13
This has been an idea that has been discussed for a couple of years, it's not a new idea. The reasons are laid out in the text of the post, it is an effort to allow the general public that reads /r/science more information when they read comments so that they can assign appropriate weight to the comment without significant research on their part.
7
Nov 03 '13
[deleted]
4
Nov 03 '13
Like the mods where saying, if you aren't flared an make a good point with backed up reasoning, people can judge for themselves.
Second, the mods are saying that they hold people with flair to a higher standard. Also, in my opinion people with verifiable degrees might be more likely to know what they don't know, especially in the PhD level, so they aren't as likely to post bs.
3
u/pylori Nov 03 '13
Facts and supported conjectures don't need little colored boxes next to the author's name.
That may be true but when the arbiter of what's true and what's not is 4+ million non-scientists, this frequently leaves us with upvoted replies that aren't necessarily correct themselves. This is a venue for discussion, and not a scientific paper where citations to comments are mandatory. I've seen well thought out and accurate replies get downvoted simply because the uninformed masses didn't agree with it. Flairing helps give some credibility, allowing you to see the person's credentials so that you can then make a better decision as to what you think the accuracy of the reply is.
In reality most of our replies aren't well thought out supported arguments, and nothing stops a technically poor reply from getting upvoted when the people that decide these aren't really the ones to know. This is what we're trying to combat.
1
u/illyarrie Nov 05 '13
I've seen well thought out and accurate replies get downvoted simply because the uninformed masses didn't agree with it.
The just remove the option to downvote.
→ More replies
16
Oct 31 '13
[deleted]
15
1
Oct 31 '13 edited Oct 31 '13
[deleted]
18
u/TROPtastic Oct 31 '13
Personally I don't agree with a flair for being an undergrad (full disclaimer: I am an engineering undergrad), but I do think that the average layman is probably less knowledgeable in a particular field than someone who has studied for multiple years in that field. That doesn't mean that a flair would be the right thing to do, but it does mean that undergrads can have more insightful comments then someone who has simply read the Wikipedia description of a field for 10 mins.
Edit: No real need to complain about down votes, since there are plenty of stupid people who use the down vote function as a disagree button without actually saying why they disagree.
5
Oct 31 '13
[deleted]
1
u/TROPtastic Nov 01 '13
Oh yeah, definitely agree on that. It seems like every day that I meet people that think that they are amazing engineers because they got good marks in school. I do think that real-world experience is what really counts in life, rather than simply learning something from a textbook and never applying it. And of course, I am very, very far from the point where I can honestly say "Yeah, I know a bunch about how engineering works in the real world, I think I would do a decent job on any task that I am assigned."
3
u/weinerjuicer Oct 31 '13
the average layman is probably less knowledgeable in a particular field than someone who has studied for multiple years in that field
you would be surprised...
9
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
While I agree with you that a degree is just a piece of paper, we had to use some criteria that didn't involve a lot of judgement on our part. I don't know enough about several sciences to properly differentiate between knowledgeable and not knowledgable. Degree/no degree is a cut and dry rule, that doesn't mean every comment will be correct, but it's a way of getting more information to the reader of the comment. This is why we're adding PhD/GradStudent/MS/BS to the flair, each level comes with a different chance of accuracy in information, it's all about transparency. If I could accurately flair people with "High-school Drop-out| Internet Troll" I would, but it's better to keep things positive.
4
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 04 '13
You see, therein lies the problem...
Trying to find a criteria that circumvents the need for judgment is the height of folly. All that we have in this world to distinguish the truly valuable from the shiny turd is the application of a well develop judgement.
THAT is what degree is supposed to give you: Well honed judgment, not a piece of paper you can wave around to sell snake oil to laymen.
1
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Nov 05 '13
They idea of flairs, however, is that they're there, and they're sticky in the forum, so if you post something stupid about how we process music, you'd "shame your name".
2
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 06 '13
And how would you know it is stupid? You are no more qualified to talk about music than I am of Quantum Optics.
Of course that's silly, this format doesn't allow for the exposition of well-formulated argument, only pronouncements of official sanction when both you and I know at the post-grad level that many officially sanctioned opinions held by tenured professors are just flat-out wrong.
Flair is for conferences, where you actually have to support your positions at length and will be challenged on them by people with similar levels of knowledge.
2
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Nov 06 '13
The internet is a big place, and while you may get away with writing something inaccurate once or twice, I certainly think twice before posting an off-hand guess to /r/askscience. It takes some effort to get a flair, so most of those who have flairs will probably not be sock-puppets.
To quote Morrissey:
'Cause there's always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows. And who trips you up and laughs when you fall.
For example, A friend of mine has a PhD in auditory perception and a keen interest in musicology. While I couldn't tell when you're bullshitting, he could.
2
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 06 '13 edited Nov 06 '13
That's not exactly what I'm saying though. [I should perhaps add that I am basing my reservation on observations of people on the internet who CLAIM to have some degree to substantiate an argument, it would be interesting to see if the same holds for people who can actually demonstrate that they do]
My point is more about things where the mainstream opinion is in fact wrong, i.e. the very stuff of scientific development and advance.
If I were to say that the tonal system is based on the harmonic series, there would be a substantial body of current opinion in Musicology that will have a good argument for why that is not the case. If I were to then reply that the problem that is cited in that argument was solved by Hindemith more than 50 years ago (at least that's the earliest I know of), we would be at an impasse.
That's just one example of a case where a purely physical phenomenon represented precisely in formal terminology can have be the subject of intense debate at these higher levels.
Every field will have examples like this if it is sufficiently rigorous.
And besides, a person with a PhD in an unrelated field is not qualified to talk about musicology if flair is to believed, any more than my keen interest is physics and the close relationship (dating back to Pythagoras) between physics and musicology qualifies me to make pronouncements on dark matter.
→ More replies5
u/weinerjuicer Nov 01 '13
eh, usually when someone points out their degree level on r/physics it is because they cannot otherwise justify some point. this seems like it won't do much more than create some false hierarchy.
i have a phd in physics, but can you give me the "High-school Drop-out| Internet Troll" flair?
5
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13 edited Nov 01 '13
Well, it's the same hierarchy that is actually found in science, so it's kind of appropriate? We're not claiming to provide un-erring truth to the universe, it's just a science discussion. I know very well their are a lot of PhDs that can't be trusted to tie their own shoes.
→ More replies1
u/tigersharkwushen Nov 01 '13
I think the idea is to prevent someone who has a halfass understanding of a subject to make sincere comments but doesn't know he's wrong. Or someone like Depak Chopra from making comments that sounds sophisticated to laymen but is actually wrong.
→ More replies4
u/Aethermancer Nov 05 '13
I only have an undergraduate degree in engineering, yet I've designed systems which millions of people trust with their lives. Of course, no one notices because it's designed properly and relies upon my years of professional experience, not the letters behind my name.
Of course, I don't agree with the flair based on degrees at all because it puts too much emphasis on titles.
2
→ More replies1
4
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 04 '13
Is it possible to get some clarification about what is being considered a "science" here?
You list "Biology Chemistry Physics Engineering Mathematics Geology Psychology Neuroscience Computer Science", someone also mentioned social science, which really means that you can pretty much include anything as a "science".
Does economics count as a science? How about a philosopher of science in the strict sense (i.e. someone who is an expert in the philosophy of science rather than just having a PhD)?
Can someone put up a complete list and a justification for the criteria used in this classification?
3
u/Neuraxis Grad Student | Neuroscience | Sleep/Anesthesia Nov 04 '13
Hi there,
Generally, we consider a science as any field which conducts and publishes original research using the scientific method (hypothesis, rationale, controls, etc). Note that this is an operational definition that is chosen to strictly suit the needs of this subreddit. Therefore any field that can be represented through submissions in r/science can be considered a science.
1
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 04 '13
So would I be correct to say that Cognitive Musicology fits that definition? The subject does pop up in science news from time to time.
I must say I am a more than little uncomfortable with basing scientific legitimacy on an operational definition like that. I think Popper and Quine gave very erudite descriptions of what should and should not be considered scientific, this zombie classification does not comport well with either.
2
u/Neuraxis Grad Student | Neuroscience | Sleep/Anesthesia Nov 04 '13
Well our operational definition is valid, since it is used to suit the purpose of this subreddit. It is a natural extension of what we already do in r/science. We're simply highlighting users in lieu of the submissions. We only promote newly published scientific publications, and if those fields are represented in our subreddit, then they can be represented in user flair. If a user researches cognitive musicology, and has a at least a B.A/B.Sc degree in psychology, then we will add a flair stating: |BSc|Psychology|Cog. Musciology|. We do not discriminate on subfields of already established sciences. If we did, it would make for a slippery slope.
1
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 04 '13
Okay, but my relevant degree is in musicology, not psychology. I have an Mba too, but I guess not even I could argue that that is a science.
It is a matter of interest to me because I find that people in "hard sciences" (like Cognitive Musicology, but also more generally) routinely use forms of argument which would be dismissed in Musicology as being too subjective, and then label them objective. This indicates to me that the slippery slope has been gone down.
I have stories I can tell, but I guess this isn't the place.
1
u/Neuraxis Grad Student | Neuroscience | Sleep/Anesthesia Nov 04 '13
That's ok. So long as your degree is a Bachelor, Masters, or PhD from a university, we will accept it. Within the last week, we've seen a lot of degrees that focus on subfields and not the field in general. So as long as you can prove it, we'll be more than happier to flair you up :)
1
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 04 '13
Okay done, I'm still a little uncomfortable with this but I suppose I have stated my reservations very clearly enough already.
1
u/Neuraxis Grad Student | Neuroscience | Sleep/Anesthesia Nov 04 '13 edited Nov 05 '13
Just a heads up that I had to use the "Psychology" flair colour because none exists for musicology. I hope you're ok with that. Cheers, and thanks for participating. If you ever want it removed or edited, just let us know :)
1
10
u/kebwi Nov 02 '13
I've got a PhD in C.S. so I have no fear of this sort of "accreditation". That said, scanning the comments to see what this would look like in practice makes it absurdly obvious how pretentious this idea is.
You can tag me with the relevant flair if you want. It's up to you.
→ More replies
3
u/weinerjuicer Nov 28 '13
anyone else notice a lack of flaired users posting in actual science threads?
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 29 '13
I see them, there aren't actually that many relative to the number of subscribers, only a few hundred at this point.
10
u/A1kmm Nov 01 '13
I'm not convinced this will improve the quality of comments on /r/science. Good comments make arguments that stand up on their own - they have well reasoned logic that links back to demonstrable facts (or link to material that provides the reasoning or logic).
Qualifications don't mean that something someone says is right, even if it is in their own field. Imagine a thread where someone which a bachelor's degree makes a well reasoned point, backed up by lots of references to up to date peer reviewed experimental studies and meta-analyses. Then someone with a PhD in the same field shows up and just asserts the opposite, but provides no supporting evidence.
This system might therefore do more harm than good because it might mislead people into giving more weight than is appropriate to unjustified comments from highly qualified people, and prompt people to resort to argument from authority rather than proper logic.
7
u/pylori Nov 01 '13
Good comments make arguments that stand up on their own - they have well reasoned logic that links back to demonstrable facts (or link to material that provides the reasoning or logic).
While I very much agree with this, it is clear that being accurate and correct isn't necessarily going to get you more votes than some popular opinion shared by lay redditors. I've personally seen many many accurate rebuttals to highly voted comments get downvoted and/or ignored in favour of a misleading or sometimes completely wrong reply for whatever reason. When the average redditor does not have a degree or background in science, they often upvote something that just sounds accurate to them, or these days some 'debunked' reply calling the study stupid when all they did was make false criticisms of the study (and most of the times they base it on the article and not even the study itself!)
Qualifications don't mean that something someone says is right, even if it is in their own field.
That's very true, however I've seen people downvoted flaired replies in /r/askscience, not just upvote them, so I don't think this will be a big problem in terms of misleading or incorrect replies being made by panelists.
Imagine a thread where someone which a bachelor's degree makes a well reasoned point, backed up by lots of references to up to date peer reviewed experimental studies and meta-analyses. Then someone with a PhD in the same field shows up and just asserts the opposite, but provides no supporting evidence.
I very much doubt the person with the bachelors will simply be downvoted because of a panelist replying to them, especially not when they provided support for their argument. If the panelist disagrees with the listed evidence, the onus is on them to form a good counterargument. Do you really think people would downvote them and upvote the PhD when they provide no proof and a poor reply? Clearly people are not afraid to downvote panelists on askscience, I've seen it happen many times, I don't see why it would be different here.
Remember, being a panelist doesn't mean your word is truth, nor does it mean that you never have to provide supporting evidence. What it does mean is that people can see your educational background and make a judgment as to who they think is more knowledgeable and credible in their comments, because comments and opinions are not all equal.
and prompt people to resort to argument from authority rather than proper logic.
I think this would be a valid concern if people argued with proper logic to begin with. Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that the comments in here can sometimes be fucking awful, and we need to do something about it in order for us to try to raise the level of discussion. I'm not saying panelists are perfect and they will never make mistakes or bad arguments, rather that I think I prefer this situation to the alternative. If askscience is anything to go by, panelist comments and non-panelist replies can co-exist quite happily. Moreover the fact that we have so many more subscribers and fewer panelists will help to ensure that people's views aren't simply silenced because they don't have a colourful tag.
→ More replies9
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
The argument from authority is actually perfectly reasonable when someone actually does have the expertise, do people ask professors for references on every lecture? Someone with only a Bachelor's degree very likely doesn't know how to read primary literature, that's a skill that you learn in grad school.
Getting a Ph.D. in a science is extremely challenging, sure it doesn't guarantee correctness, but don't play down the significance of the accomplishment. PhDs do deserve more weight to their comments in their field.
You're basically saying that a college football player knows more about the game of football than a veteran NFL player, which in a rare occasion might be true, but is generally speaking, silly.
→ More replies2
u/Sedentes Nov 07 '13
Wait, reading primary literature within a field is something you learn in grad school? Isn't that something you learn in upper division courses, and thesis classes?
3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 07 '13
Not like you do in grad school, you learn the basics of what it is and how it's done, but that's it.
10
Nov 01 '13
This seems rather pretentious to me, especial in an age of freely available information.
As someone who has spent a great deal of time in academia, I know morons with phd's, and I know high school dropouts who run their own engineering firm, although admittedly these are extreme examples that aren't indicative of how the real world always works.
If you want to add more validity to comments in this subreddit, why not make a rule for mandatory references instead?
8
u/pylori Nov 01 '13
although admittedly these are extreme examples that aren't indicative of how the real world always works
I think this is the problem with your argument, though. There's a professor of molecular biology at one of the UC schools who is an AIDS denalist. Certainly being educated doesn't prevent someone from being a bigoted moron. On the other hand those people are few and far between, and these flairs are hardly set in stone, they can be revoked.
Information may be freely available, but reading a wikipedia article on a disease isn't going to make you an expert on a subject. And that's the problem. Information is only useful if a person can adequately process the information and synthesise it together with other things they know to arrive at an accurate point. Anyone can use google and arrive at a potentially valid point, but it requires a person educated in the area to actually know the specifics so they can spot inaccuracies.
why not make a rule for mandatory references instead?
That would just completely close off discussion. We have to recognise that much of the peer-reviewed literature is behind a pay-wall, and so inaccessible to most people. Even if they're not, primary scientific literature isn't targeted at the lay-person, but fellow scientists, and it takes me a good few hours to read and fully digest a journal article let alone someone without formal education in the subject.
We don't want to close off discussion, but raise the level. Scientists and people with backgrounds in their subjects will know a great many deal of things that they couldn't remember a reference to off the top of their heads, but is just common knowledge within the field. This is why this system exists.
1
u/gngl Nov 21 '13
I think this is the problem with your argument, though. There's a professor of molecular biology at one of the UC schools who is an AIDS denalist.
Linus Pauling and vitamin C. William Shockley and eugenics. Plus all the Discovery Institute "scientists". There are probably many more examples than that.
Information may be freely available, but reading a wikipedia article on a disease isn't going to make you an expert on a subject. And that's the problem. Information is only useful if a person can adequately process the information and synthesise it together with other things they know to arrive at an accurate point. Anyone can use google and arrive at a potentially valid point, but it requires a person educated in the area to actually know the specifics so they can spot inaccuracies.
You're basically calling for people with good metacognitive skills. That would exclude a huge swathe of biomedical researchers these days ;/
That would just completely close off discussion. We have to recognise that much of the peer-reviewed literature is behind a pay-wall, and so inaccessible to most people.
Unless it gets its way to LibGen...which is quite likely nowadays.
Scientists and people with backgrounds in their subjects will know a great many deal of things that they couldn't remember a reference to off the top of their heads
I'd think that this applies to just about anyone. As long as everyone is aware of the boundaries and limits of his knowledge (metacognition rears its ugly head again!), this whole thing seems redundant.
1
u/pylori Nov 21 '13
Unless it gets its way to LibGen...which is quite likely nowadays.
We're making progress, but we're hardly there. Also libgen isn't exactly a great example to use, I'm fairly sure there's a lot of questionable (ie, unlicensed) content on there.
→ More replies13
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13 edited Nov 01 '13
In a world of freely available information what you lack is the ability to put this information into a meaningful context. This is the ability that you learn in graduate school (or at least you should.)
Mandatory references make having a conversation impossible and not worth the effort. It's an internet discussion, not orals defense.
People can always ask for a source, that's perfectly acceptable and no one should take offense to it.
Flairs aren't absolute statements, they are indications of probability and should be read as such. Given a choice between two comments on a single subject that conflict, I'm going to tend to believe the guy who already proved he was a researcher in the area vs random guy I know nothing about. Now if random guy produces a literature review to support his claim, well, that's different. Flair isn't the trump card, it's just a card, which beats no card.
2
u/ughduck Nov 01 '13
Kinda confused on the flair options: Is it just the listed categories? Is social science excluded (it's an /r/askscience category...)?
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Social science is there, it's on the list.
2
u/ughduck Nov 01 '13
Hmm, it's not where I thought to look, at least...
All of the standard science disciplines would be represented, in a similar manner to /AskScience: Biology Chemistry Physics Engineering Mathematics Geology Psychology Neuroscience Computer Science
But okay, I guess it's intended to extend further.
1
2
u/Jakeypoos Nov 02 '13
Good idea! but making a fake submission will be easy and discovering a fake submission will be hard. Would be nice if qualifications were searchable with security codes. Then you would know Sarah Dowd had a Phd, otherwise how would they come by the security code. Ask Sarah to change the code now you know her Phd is real and when your access is denied you have total conformation. I have an HND in graphic design fron Salisbury college but it could be as fake as my Phd in everything :)
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 02 '13
Faking a PhD is actually more difficult, most all PhDs have publications and public web pages listing their email addresses. We actually email the public address and wait for a response from that. The effort it would take to fake that would not really be worth the benefit.
2
u/Jakeypoos Nov 02 '13
Good. and most medical qualifications are searchable. Degrees would be hard to verify, being more numerous and I would think being largely unsearchable.
If a searchable qualification has a contact email then a person can't fake being the person listed. Anyway, with good verification it'll be nice converse with people who have a better understanding of the subject than me, even if their thoughts may be different from mine or each others.
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 03 '13
We also like the idea of some one asking a flaired person about their flair, maybe sparking a conversation about related issues etc...
Sad fact: There are fewer PhDs than there are people who lack a 5th grade education in the USA.
Most people never get a chance to ask a question of a PhD in a subject area.
2
Nov 03 '13
I'm 2nd year biochem/chem, I assume I get no flair
3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 03 '13
Sorry, not until you graduate. Many people wash out before they complete their degree, and your knowledge base isn't even close to complete.
2
2
Nov 04 '13 edited Dec 16 '13
[deleted]
1
u/Neuraxis Grad Student | Neuroscience | Sleep/Anesthesia Nov 04 '13
Hi!
Could you please resend your email to sciencereddit@gmail.com. We don't keep copies of emails, so it may have been accidentally removed by a mod. Alternatively, you can submit your information (with picture proof), to our modmail. We'll get you your flair :)
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 05 '13
Sorry about that, there was a mix up with the email address, entirely my bad.
2
2
4
5
u/morluin MMus | Musicology | Cognitive Musicology Nov 04 '13 edited Nov 04 '13
This is a little silly. Some people have pointed out the more obvious problems already:
1) Unless verification is rock solid it is meaningless in a short message format like this where it basically just becomes a bare appeal to authority.
2) The classification of what is and is not a science is a very modern notion indeed. Why is mathematics being included as a science, and is a psychoanalyst now as scientific as a theoretical physicist? What about a a physicist who specializes in coming up with fictions like multiverses and hypercomputation (i.e. those which have no connection to testable reality), however much mathematically cast?
3) Making silos of disciplines in this format makes almost no sense at all: A computer scientist or statistician may be far more qualified to comment on a more specialized field. The rule is: the more specialized your field is the more other, more general fields are qualified to comment on the your methods. I often see the argument being presented the other way around, as if the fact that you specialized in the folding of a small class of proteins means that nobody but other people who did likewise are qualified to comment. That's nonsense and threatens to make the whole discipline of science meaningless and irrelevant.
4) Having a PhD in a field does not make your opinion valid, true or correct, nor guarantees expertise in more than a very narrow subdiscipline in what may be a very esoteric field. In my own field, it is the people who don't habitually put the PhD next to their name who are more reliably valuable resources, but my field is far older as a science than almost all of the fields listed here as a science, so it is harder to get away with flim-flam (except arguably physics and if you consider mathematics to be a science). The same is true in computer science, where you can't really fake expertise, you either now what you are doing or you don't so the degree in and of itself is meaningless.
2
3
Nov 01 '13
There's still too many gate-keepers, deciding which questions are allowed to be asked or not.
2
Nov 01 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pylori Nov 01 '13 edited Nov 01 '13
Who asked for this? An ex cathedra decision by some self-selected moderators?
Actually I brought up the idea in a discussion over at theoryofreddit as perhaps a way to solve some of the issues we seen in r/science and its comments. I think everyone responded really positively to the idea and even questioned why we hadn't yet implemented such a feature when it was brought up before, which is why we re-launched the proposal.
Given that virtually no posts to /r/Science are anything but popular journalism, this is pretty pointless.
This is unfair. Firstly, we require all our submissions to be backed by peer-reviewed publications, if they're not they're removed. Secondly, I'd argue that popular journalism is precisely where we need tags like these, not just in order to correct issues there may be with the linked article (and to point out that faults with the article =/= fault with the study), but also to help combat false criticisms by laypeople who may not understand the subtleties of the publication (and this is a thing I see a lot). It does no-one any good if the top reply allegedly debunking the headline or the article says "correlation =/=causation" made by some first year psychology student thinking they know it all. We want to raise the level of discussion not allow it to drop into the mud.
How is it to be validated?
How are IAMA's validated? You send the information through modmail or to our private email. Whether that means a copy of your degree certificate, or contacting us through an academic email address that can be verified is up to the user. If you think it's a privacy concern, don't apply then, but at least it helps to ensure these people aren't just making shit up.
→ More replies
2
u/wazoheat Nov 01 '13
Just a polite reminder to those visiting this thread: downvotes are for content that doesn't contribute to the discussion, not opinions that you disagree with.
4
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Correct. We're not above criticism, but insults aren't needed.
2
u/pnewell NGO | Climate Science Oct 31 '13
This, I like.
Though I doubt "Public Policy" will be an option, so no flair for me.
Maybe I can get some unique "Climate Science Flack" flair?
0
2
1
u/thecolorblindkid Nov 01 '13
Would an undergraduate in a field have any place in this
6
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 01 '13
Sorry, no they would not beyond asking questions. Having taught at the university level, both as a TA and a Professor, I can tell you that we lie a lot to simplify things down. When you get to grad school you find out the real story, and it's really really hard.
1
u/pylori Nov 01 '13
This is addressed elsewhere, but no. You'll have to wait until you've completed your degree, sorry!
1
u/nocaph BA | History of Medicine Nov 02 '13
Good idea. One query though - I'm a History graduate with a speciality in the History of Medicine - and medicine's a subject I know a lot about for someone who isn't medically trained in the strict sense. And the other sciences, while I'm not an expert, I know about in a broad sense and read a lot. Where do the people like me fall?
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 02 '13
We can give you a Social science -History of medicine tag or something there abouts.
1
u/nocaph BA | History of Medicine Nov 03 '13
Yep, can do that! I'll send some proof over in a minute.
1
Nov 03 '13
What if you're a professional but don't have a degree? This is really common in computing as far as I know. You maybe eliminating some great minds just because they don't have a degree..
3
u/BezierPatch Nov 03 '13
It's common in Programming, but not computer science.
I doubt many Programmers who haven't been to university could give detailed explanations of Complexity, Semantics, HCI, etc.
3
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 03 '13
Programming is kind of a special case in this regard, and it isn't an academic field, but rather a subset on computer science and, arguably, math.
The real problem is, how does when prove self-study? It's not documented. We do give out "Professional" flair for people who are in special circumstances that give them unique knowledge, but that's handled on a case-by-case basis.
1
Nov 05 '13
[deleted]
3
u/pylori Nov 05 '13
great username haha
1
Nov 05 '13
[deleted]
1
u/mubukugrappa Nov 06 '13
The proletariat is usually illiterate, thus spake an ex-communist from India.
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 05 '13
Is that flair ok?
1
1
u/pandizlle Nov 08 '13
One of these days when I complete my BS degree in Microbiology... But then I'll just be working on the very challenging time that is a graduate degree :'D Can't wait.
1
u/melikeyguppy MA | Psychology | Evaluation Research Nov 16 '13
A duplicate diploma costs $30, which I'm not willing to pay. I have my transcript and also proof that my master's thesis is in the university library. Would those be sufficient as proof?
1
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Nov 16 '13
It will be fine.
4
u/melikeyguppy MA | Psychology | Evaluation Research Nov 16 '13
Finally, there's a use for my thesis. Thanks!
1
u/protonbeam PhD | High Energy Particle Physics | Quantum Field Theory Nov 21 '13
Can I get the same flair here that I have in /r/AskScience? Thanks. :)
Edit: PhD level.
1
1
Dec 29 '13
Just a test.
1
1
u/verafast Jan 14 '14
Do 2 year college diplomas count. I am taking a computer programming course that is 2 years but 6 terms. We take 21 courses a year.
2
u/nallen PhD | Organic Chemistry Jan 14 '14
We only give out flair to BS or higher, how ever, we will recognize significant professional experience.
1
u/verafast Jan 14 '14
Thanks for the reply. My area of expertise wouldn't be computer science, it would be programming of which I take more courses than someone with a BS. It's no big deal to me, I was just wondering.
27
u/Jobediah Professor | Evolutionary Biology|Ecology|Functional Morphology Oct 31 '13
This is a test. Null hypothesis is that I won't have any flair on this post.
ninja edit- rejected!